DogsonFire-2
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
When I first read Contradicts message (several before) I misread it to read, “I’m off to cane myself” !…and I thought, how apt in this singular masochistic scenario ! well, it would beat entering the competition! and indeed echoes that of the last message from b.ray. Truly those that entered the competition have been led a merry dance, by the pied piper( aka DDDA) and if there is some truth to the proposition that another project was actually selected for the winner then , what are we waiting for……..call the lawyers! But who dares to?!
I have no argument with Joe the Architect, it is shameful that an Architect is chosen that clearly has not satisfied the rules, and as I said before…………..â€off with his head†…but this is now perhaps too late, as the great ones have sent the white smoke and pronounced the result. I do however still further the issue that it was a concept that was required here and one which, raised the spirits, created enigma and set out to challenge ( the rules even!). For me anyhow there is nothing here in this proposal with these 3 attributes; so if it can not satisfy the technical attributes in tandem then it represents very poor judgement and the investor should think about who represents them on a jury for such occasions.
As to debate, hmmmmmmmmmmm perhaps I will stop doing this now, as I do not wish to continue adding to the possibility of making this project any more infamous than it already is.
A discussion Supramanism and all matters of the expressive zeitgeist would be interesting! but perhaps a little lengthy and certainly in my opinion not with this project as a vehicle!
I do agree that not to be able to execute the idea would be unfortunate, but to say that the contents of 2 A1 panels represents the end- game on “do-ability ” is a rather benign point I think and again represents the clumsiness of the competition process. But , yes, I agree, if the said proposal clearly flaunts the regulations then off with its head! If one is to be critical of the winner then I can but say it lacks the lustre which makes one jump up and say “hey……now I don’t what exactly going on here but it has something…….a presence!” – call me simple but that’s the real mark of a good totem, not whether its staircases work which in this day and age one would expect from any architect worth their salt. I do not belittle the technical discussion but must understand such a project on the level it is presented and question those values in the context of the do-ability. If it doesn’t go out to intellectually challenge then quite frankly I don’t care if the staircases have triple treads and double risers! I would however expect that the authors of a stimulating project would also have the same acumen to achieve the technical issue of execution. That is not to say that all doodles are works of genius and therefore as I opened with, I am not at all sure this situation merits such a hiatus. If this is the norm in Dublin then fine……….onwards and be happy.To examine the technical details based on the actual submission material is perhaps falling short of what was intended by this competition. It was(is) an “ideas competition which seeks to find an “idea” or “concept” which can be developed with an investor’s participation and actual hands-on engineering.
Therefore detail compliance with any Regulation is not viable at this stage. This does not excuse a blatant avoidance of regulations but provides the window through which both the competition organisers and indeed the authors can climb in any claim at this stage that the project does not comply with a building regulation. Therefore we must examine the “concept” to find what intentions the authors had/have in addressing any such issues; and indeed the concept was in the most part to be one of “visual” impact ( hence the mandatory 3D images). Without a jury report it is very diffiult to see how a decision was reached, what was the discussion, the main criteria and the main protagonists in this discourse. Still, as has been said before, the main issue here is, did DDDA act within the bounderies of the Competition Rules or not in the actual process of the Jury. Clearly the “Jury” were impressed by this entry and made a decision which is fine, but all the other’s want to know is, who was/is the Jury and what process was engaged here ( including the mysterious Audit !).I agree……..in that it is the discussion that prevails from such events which is valuable. It’s a shame the chaps in DDDA didn’t have a bit of think before they launched this “thing”. But Ok 500 or more egocentric souls put pen to paper and in that it almost authenticates the competition. If architects had been at all bothered by the rules then clearly this could have been reflected in A: number of entries and the B: Questions. BUT this does not excuse the Authorities (notice the big A) who have a clear responsibility to lead the merry troupe in a legal and clear pathway, especially AFTER all submissions have been submitted. This is their elected responsibility be it as competition Organisers or Jury.
As was said before there is some doubt this pathway was taken and therefore requires examination.
As to differences, shapes, height, tress and twists……………well I’ve always maintain that most structures still carry Gustav Semper’s notion of the Caribbean hut. Its shelter still, but in a different “styleâ€; and not particularly “rub–a-dub†in this case!
Originally posted by MOL
I also find however that to simply accept the results of such an appallingly organised international competition without a single word of protest is from our perspective another lost opportunity…………
A critic of the “winning†proposal is, as I think most agree, not the main issue here, but the method and protocol which was employed to make the “decision†does require some scrutiny.
Many competitions publish a Jury report which describes in some cases the procedure, the time, and in some cases the minutes of the meetings. It certainly should record the people involved. As the competition Jury involved the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland then surely there must be some “rules†that should have been administered and referred to.
The issue of anonymity is clearly questionable by the fact that a, as yet undeclared, set of persons contacted, apparently, all participants before the end of the competition, revealing therefore the fact that the envelope contacting the authors had been opened. In addition the fact that the same people asked for data of the submissions from the authors concludes that anonymity was broken.
Reference was made to competitions “on the back of Cornflakes packets†before and this is perhaps how the organisers view such event, with the “competitors†having no rights and entry into the competition is with all risks. Indeed competitors do entry at their own financial risk and this is always the gamble which many architects have to adopt. Competitions are by their nature speculation for the architect, especially open ones such as this, but do serve to sharpen architects approach into the market place. It is however an open bazaar after submission but with the conditions that A- the jury are professional and B the procedure is taken on as published in the brief.
Given a payment made a type of contract is made between the Organiser and the Competitor on the understanding that the conditions of the brief are met by BOTH parties.
In would appear that in this competition this meeting of conditions is in some doubt.
I must stress this is not some sort of sour eggs or whatever the saying is!….but a necessary observation as such events are likely to be continued, and if to be in anyway a professional and fair way to award contracts or infer awarding of contracts, must be more carefully and legally controlled.
Bring back Frank Gehry……………all is forgiven! ooops sorry……………not in the spirit of camaraderie which is emerging here….all very Empire building stuff, eh what fellas! pat on the head for the Johnny Architect and a C+ for the effort…….really……….come on ……..this is utter nonsense. ….I agree it is not fair to shoot the messengers ( the winners , who naturally must be given a reward ) but look at those who have perpetrated the whole event.
It’s a question of whether one is historical or hysterical. Quite frankly I prefer the latter against the failure on the former. I thought this was rock’n’roll but sadly K-tel have taken over here. Where is the madness, the utter contempt , the sheer glory in being wild and expansive ( and expensive). Are we all in the serious brogues of creating sensible things, such a shame…………….
OK, a little over boiled there but it does make the veins expand when one thinks of how nice it would be to re-visit the age of risk! Now there’s history for you.
So, there we have it, a result which at least puts the stress back in the cupboard for the architects till the next competition! But…………. mmmmmmm…….indeed, a disappointing result. Not because of the associations which other draw with regards to the design, its authors relationship with U2 etc, etc but the complete lack of confident qualities which such a structure must provide. It was to be the Totem under which the divided could unite, the Vision which would brush away the differences of the conservatives , conservationists, and bigots. It has done perhaps quite the opposite and revived all these rather banal and negative tendencies without offering a Vision.
Surely it will be the landmark, as its scale will prevail in this attribute but not, perhaps, one which can in anyway be comparable to that of Calatrava’s tower in Malmo which is delivering this spirit of the totem. Pelli’s Canary wharf tower, well of course shapes are shapes are this is similar shape but so what, the critical issue is- the shape is not compatible with the gyroscopic kinetic which the twist is supposed to suggest. Or maybe we can refer to the metabolic structures of Kurokawa as a sauce(sic) for reference. But as I inferred before this is just hot air as the issue of Vision and Totem have not, in my opinion, been met.
It is interesting the identity of the jury were never published. In all competitions, one of the main issues an architect examines is the Jury list, to determine the leanings the judging might have. This was not possible here, and in many ways the competitors entered with a key component undeclared.
But , the “Jury†have announced the winner……………..and that’s that. A lost opportunity.
Never really sure what Architects are expected to do in these circumstances. Competitions are , as I’ve have raised before, a catch 22 for the aspiring and established ego. We must hope, pray even for some sort of result which places one on the map, but when that decision is delayed, unclear or forgotten about the Architect becomes a hostage to their own intellectual neurosis. A terrible pain for some and just plan pain in the ass for most! Come on chaps, put us all out of our misery and release us from that burden of expectation. That 50,000 € must have been well dented now in fees to the auditors and salaries of the DDDA employees involved in the competition, not to mention the jury. So I assume it is in their interest now to conclude this matter before it becomes really expensive, or is the DDDA a public funded mission with a flexible budget.
In all seriousness though it questions the legality of such competition processes which do generate funds, real cash , and is not as must be remembered the only cost the Architects have to carry. Cost of tendering is always an issue in the construction market be it a Contractor or Designer/Consultant. Many offices do not do competitions simply because of the expense which personally I think is a bit dull, but understandable. The input for this particular competition was perhaps not enormous but nonetheless demanded on the Architect to spend time with their intellectual property which I presume is what the Investor/ developer is paying for.
This Knowledge Capital has different value obviously depending on the experience and track-record and of course “good ideas†of the Architect but if you equate this into 500 entries also it creates enormous investment in the competition process and one which should be more carefully handled.
So, DDDA, a decison?………………good idea, yes?
If all this PWC issue is true then it makes for an interesting jury scenario- Architecture Competion judged by accountants….mmmmm I always know really that Architecture is but a toy to many who become instant experts ……..a frail truth of the profession I’m afraid. What are they auditing ? how many words or colours were used or quantities of lines or different shapes……..maybe how many cliches have been employed! And anyway who are the Jury? So many questions , so many scenarios………..and above all so much confusion! surely something PCW are familiar with in their dealing with suspect clients around the globe (did I mention Aurther Andersons?) Money for old rope……….and that’s what Architecture is right now….old rope!
Originally posted by cajual
i can only guess the ddda are preemptively covering their asses.because of the anonymity controversy at the beginning of the process, they have called in a heavyweight auditing company to ensure the process was anonymous, therefore if someone threatens court action after the result they can wave their big fat audit in the air and say ‘not guilty and we have the papers to prove it, ha ha!’
That’s what I thought too! which implies………FG may be the winner! What a surprise!
Anyone familiar with the issue of a large international auditing company in connection with the competition assessment process?
The question is: are we talking “Smoke and Mirrors” OR “Cloak and Daggers”! or is it just another Chinese whisper. …..maybe there’s a song there!…….and probably more profitable than entering Architectural competitions. After all it’s only Rockn’Roll, but as usual the suits of establishment underestimate the influence of such frivolity………still in their ivory towers of “respectability” with an overstated R.
Let’s face it ………..DDDA have seriously gone “walk-abouts” on this and now seek external corporate stability to bolster their inadequate abilities. Poor show chaps and chapesses………….
If you know what I’m talking about please enlighten me!
